Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

Of course He can. The argument states that...4

everything that begins to exist has a cause,
Thing: an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

As far as we know, these things begin to exist, and as we can see no God, as a physical being,
we cannot involve God in this, or the other two premises. Therefore the question is not being begged.

the univcrse began to exist
the universe had a cause.
It is from the third premise we draw the conclusion that God is cause.
Basically an uncaused, beginningless, cause, was responsible for the universe.
Earlier on I posted some attributes this cause had to have, and those attributes describe God.

So yes, there was nothing (no thing) before the beginning of the cosmos, but it doesn't mean that God hasn't always been.
Even if matter always existed, it didn't exist as uniformed nature we experience now.

The dictionary definition of everything states, that it is all things, plus, the current situation, life in general. Not the sum total of all existence.

jan .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The cause of the universe exists outside of time (as time comes into being with the universe). The universe contains all manner of things, including conscious life.
Different kinds of expressions, concepts, opinions, etc... To us this may seem like billions of years to come to this point in our evolution (some would beg to differ), which is obviously
an inconceivable amount of time. But to a timeless cause, it would occur at will. And I say 'will', because we experience 'will', therefore it exists, therefore it is a part of the cause.
A 'will' signifies desire, choice, etc... Such attributes are personal, not material.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK well then... Why would some "God" cause us to exist?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I explained what every thing means. It basically means material objects. As far as we know material objects have an explanation for their existence, meaning they are contingent.
The cause-er of the universe, or everything (according to definition), cannot be the same as it's effect. It cannot bring time into being (let's call time a clock), and then be under the control of the device.
That makes no sense.

jan.

 

If humans need God, the question is: ''why do humans need God''?
Putting aside the throwaways like man need an explanation for thunder, or some devious people invented Him to control the masses, etc...
Why not look at it from the perspective that God IS logically necessary, and that's the reason why humans need Him. There are humans who believe they don't need God, but it obviously doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, only that we don't need Him.
I guess I'm asking why bother to maintain that God does not exist, or there is no evidence for God (when there clearly is), why not just admit you don't need Him (like a teenager may think he/she doesn't need his/father, and expresses that by pretending he doesn't exit).

Because we totally reliant on God. Without God, there is no perception, no awareness. We're living on a planet that is finely tuned for us. We have an abundance of food, water, and resources. We have the ability to know God, or deny Him (should we choose). We can understand the greatness of God through art, science, religion, and philosophy. This is an ability we take for granted, without appreciating how we have obtained it. Of course this has nothing to do with the logic of God's necessary existence, as in it doesn't prove God exists. But if God does exist..;

jan.

 

Because we want to experience like God, so God allows that to happen.

jan.

 

And you know this how?

 

Sorry, but no. I don't believe in any god. I don't rely on any god. I'm nearly 100% sure there is no god, even that I can't prove it. I perceive and I am aware. All without any god.

You should not extrapolate yourself this way, and assume everyone is like you. If you imagine to be all reliant on god, ok. But that doesn't mean, everyone is.

PS: In your case I'd be very careful. It might be that you rely on an illusion. This can hurt very much if the illison finally pops. Better not rely on anything else but yourself and your own abilities. That's the only thing no one can take from you.

 

Through God's word.

jan.

 

OK, what's the word?

 

Because it's both. No one needs him and he doesn't exist.

 

Belief has nothing to do with it.
You are aware because you're bodily machine comes with that ability.

If the logical conclusion is, God exist. Then every sentient being in the cosmos is reliant upon the mercy of God, whether you believe in Him, accept the proposition, or not.
In most scriptures you will find something like 'it is a fool that says there is no God'.

We have our allotted time, then we leave. You have no control, you only think you do.
Your abilities can taken away from you, just like that.

jan.

 

I tried to talk to you earlier about the word, and you brushed me off.
Why should I waste time talking to you now?

jan.

 

So you believe God doesn't exist?

jan.

 

So, you are jerking me around?

 

No. I'm fobbing you off.

jan.

 

See. No god needed there.

 

OK.

 

Really?

jan.

 

There is Occams razor - if you have two explanations, take the one which needs fewer new and/or additional concepts/entities whatever. This is not a 100% rule, but a surprising good one.

So if I have two equivalent explanations, one which requires a god, and one which can explain the thing without a god, I'll take the one without a god.

So yes, really. Unless there comes evidence that the simple explanation was insufficient. You can deliver such evidence, but your postings here showed a lot of claims, yet little evidence to support your claims, so I have doubts you can undermine the simple explanation that need no god. But go ahead and try.

PS: Evidence, as I mean it, must be testable and repeatable. It's not sufficient to say "I have seen". It must be possible to repeat the sight and test it. Otherwise it's just an empty phrase to me. Everone can claim "I have seen/experienced", it means nothing if the thing in question cannot be repeated and tested by other people.